IT is considered typical Filipino behavior to cope with serious incidents through humor; perhaps why we are perceived as resilient in different aspects. There have been long discussions on whether this behavior should be applauded. Playing jokes on serious incidents? So immature—concerning, rather. As Filipinos, we should ask ourselves: where should we draw the line?

Last Apr. 19, a total of 19 people died in a military operation in Toboso, Negros Occidental. This news made rounds online, gaining different reactions. While there are multiple groups expressing sympathy and anger for the victim, there were also a concerning number of “humorous” comments around it. 

A student leader, researcher, and organizer who worked with farming communities in Negros is how Alyssa Alano was described in an article post about the unfortunate incident. “Naging corned beef, naging lumpia,” referring to her body being used as a food ingredient, and even a play on her surname to “Alana,” were the comments under this post. 

Some may argue that this is politically charged. The majority of the foul comments are from people who are under the impression that Alano was  part of the New People’s Army (NPA), which is generally frowned upon. Regardless, one’s life, more so the loss of it, should never be a subject of mockery. 

These sentiments do not just downplay the gravity of the issue but also perpetuate its harm. With these comments surrounding the issue, the public’s anger becomes divided and misplaced. Energy spent on demanding accountability is instead spent on the attempt to save the victim’s dignity by policing the said jokes.

It is so easy to brand people as ‘too serious’ when they refuse to condone this behavior. Why are we taught that it is acceptable to frown upon performative activism but not performative apathy, when in fact they are equally harmful?

They both pose a huge risk—a risk that one takes in exchange for their online persona. Nowadays, people care more about how they are perceived online than the consequences of their actions.

It becomes a matter of being judged as doing too much or being cool—this starts to dictate the direction of a person’s online identity.

For instance, widely known personalities are commonly called out for performative activism. The usual pattern is that being vocal about their advocacies is only an option when it pleases their feed. The worst part is that whatever they preach online does not reflect their actions. 

On the other hand, there are people who intentionally use tactless humor to address serious incidents with the goal of gaining online attention. This goes back to the root of being perceived as an unbothered or laid-back figure.

Regardless of the reason, there should always be a clear line separating an action’s intent from its impact. Having an innocent intention does not erase the harm of an action. We should start looking past the excuse of wanting to lighten up the mood and take it easy.

There is no place for humor when the subject concerns life, injustice, and anything under immorality.